I was unable to gain anything from this book at all. As a science teacher whose main subject is Physics, and who long ago lost any belief in spiritualism, mysticism or God, I found this a difficult and often irritating read. It had sections with the usual references to “pseudo-science” often found in tracts of this type, which seem to be added in order to justify certain vaguely scientific statements. For example in an earlier section of the book it would appear that the “guiding voice” is attempting to convince George, a pastor, and the reader no doubt, that human perception of the “real” or material world is an illusion. The pastor’s admitted lack of understanding about how his brain can control his body when drinking a glass of water is then used to justify the introduction of some vague concepts of the “true self”, as opposed to the “mind” and the “outer world”. This is just one example of woolly concepts that are slipped in without satisfactory explanation and where the text quickly moves on to another day or event. There was a short passage about molecular geometry which seemed to be there apropos of nothing in particular; but then the voice stated that “the elements are supposed to be discovered. Then, it added that written records of nature’s finer forces are purposely falsified and that’s why such records differ in critical details.” What? Evidence please, and while we are there what is “carbon diocyde”? Is it meant to say carbon dioxide?

Quote: “Your common perception excels if it comes to survival, but it’s inadequate to explore other levels of reality; in fact, it completely fails you,” the voice joins the discussion again. This statement precedes what appeared to me to be a clever sleight of hand use of reverse logic, where the author/voice seems to be encouraging the reader to think that their ideas can comfortably encompass the synthesis of religion with philosophy and science. We read that George initially insists on keeping them as completely separate specialisations because “their principles are different”, but then he very quickly takes it on board when the voice says “if scientists would research nature, keeping in mind that the whole thing was designed, and pastors would study God in a scientific manner, these two disciplines wouldn’t appear so different anymore.” This statement is followed up with “Yes, of course - you can know God!” and George thinking about “perceptual differences” between people and then coming to the conclusion that “everybody perceives the outer world differently must be caused by something else.” Of course the implied something else is God so tactfully suggested a few sentences earlier. How this was meant to convince or persuade a heathenish reader (like me) to read on escaped me. Quote: “In the astral, claral, and spiritual universes, time is not a linear affair. There, past, present, and future are all wrapped up together,” states the author/voice and then goes on to tell George he will use a scientific explanation to help him latch on to “timelessness”. The “science” used is quantum theory, and Maxwell’s equations are hinted at as adding validity to his argument, but, as all competent sci-fi writers know, the so-called Grandfather principle demonstrates that it is impossible to change the past. A time traveller going back in time who then murders his own grandfather makes it impossible for the time traveller to exist later in order to go back in time etc! It’s OK in a novel, a fictional story and Stefan Edmunds does claim the usual “This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, businesses, places, events and incidents are either the products of the author’s imagination or used fictitiously”, but the ideas and concepts in this book are presented as a didactic treatise not as a novel in the accepted sense. I could understand that God Child is a book about George’s epiphany, about a person's awakening, both spiritually and maybe mystically but the whole idea was wasted on me. It is a not a novel, with a plot and interacting characters - but it is a very well written treatise that requires new thinking about its genre slot in my opinion.